Every once in a while a specialist will come across a coin that opens the window of knowledge just a tiny bit more on the area he specialises in. This is one such coin. Vespasian AR Denarius, 3.30g Antioch mint, 70 AD Obv: IMP CAESAR VESPASIANVS AVG; Head of Vespasian, laureate, r. Rev: PONT MAX TRIB POT; Pax std. r., with sceptre and branch RIC 1539 var. BMC -. BNC -. RPC 1914 var. Acquired from CGB.fr, April 2020. An extremely rare unlisted Antiochene denarius which copies a type previously only recorded for Antiochene aurei. This is the second known example of this Pax type in silver, the other was previously at auction in 2018 (NN 71, lot 449). The 'TRIB POT' reverse legend is unique to Antioch and only appears with this Pax type. The coin is in a very early style with Vespasian unusually sporting a full head of hair. All the coins from this first Antiochene issue are quite rare and do not come up in trade very often. I missed out on the NN coin and thought another would never surface again in my lifetime. Luckily, I was wrong! Plus, this example is a much finer specimen! The unusual style and rainbow toning are added bonuses. I will be informing RIC II.1 author Ian Carradice of the piece so this new denarius type can be added to the upcoming Flavian RIC Addenda, most likely as 1539A. Feel free to post your unique discoveries or unlisted coins!
There is a lot of detail here. It is information provided by Helvetica. This is only the second known. There are 203 "soldiers with two standards" coins Cyzicus listed in RIC (including the additions in my XLS list). These were struck by a number of different emperors. But of those 203, only 4 are known of Constantius II which have a star before the mintmark, so Star SMK.. something. The officina is the mint workshop which struck the coins. Most mints had more than one workshop, in fact Antioch had up to 15 at one point in time! On these later Roman bronzes, these workshops are denoted by a letter such as A, B, Gamma, Delta etc. for 1,2,3,4 and this is usually (but not always) at the end of the mintmark after the abbreviation for the mint. (This was form of quality control, so if some really awful coins went into circulation, or dies were stolen and used by the thieves, the authorities knew who to blame. This form of Quality Control was introduced under Claudius II). So a mintmark with, say, SMKB was struck in Cyzicus (SMK meaning the sacred mint of Kyzikos - the Greek name of the town) and officina 2 (B). SMH Delta, would be Heraclea, officina 4. SMNA would be Nicomedia, officina 1. SMTSB would be Thessalonica, officina 2. Lyons, Trier and London were three exceptions which come to mint - they used the first letters of "Primus=first, Secundus=second, Tertius=third and usually before the abbreviated mint name. So you get mintmarks such as PLN (first officina of London, actually they only had one!), SLG for second officina at Lyons (called "Lugdunum" back then) or STR for second officina of Trier. Now, your coin *type*, RIC VII Cyzicus 113 with the star before the mintmark is listed *in RIC* only with star SMK gamma (officina 3) star SMK delta (officina 4) star SMKS (officina 6) but not with star SMKA (officina 1), so for some reason, they needed to use the additional officina 1 to make these, seeing as they were apparently only struck in officinae 3, 4 and 6. Perhaps this is the amongst the first very few of this type that were ever struck and after the basic dies were engraved, they asked officina 1 to strike a few with their mark to see how they looked, then handed them over to workshops 3, 4 and 6 for the main output. So this is why it is rare. Officina A is not in RIC and there are only a couple documented.
Thanks. I had this coin for several years before I got it clean enough to get some information on it. You never know with uncleaned coins.
It's unusual to find an unlisted Roman imperial issue, @David Atherton . You do realize that by submitting it for publication it will no longer be "unlisted." In contrast, it's not unusual to come across a Roman provincial coin that is "unlisted." Of course, there's always the possibility that it's listed somewhere, just not in the references you might have at your disposal. Here are a couple from my collection that are unlisted to the best of my knowledge. I look forward to the publication of the Severan volumes of RPC and then I'll learn more. Plautilla, AD 202-205 Roman provincial Æ 15.8 mm, 3.08 g Bithynia, Nicaea Obv: ΠΛΑVΤΙΛΛΑ CEΒΑCΤΗ, bare-headed and dr. bust, right Rev: ΝΙΚΑ-ΙΕΩΝ, Demeter standing left, holding long torch. Refs: BMC --; Sear --; RG --; Lindgren I --; SNG von Aulock --; SNG Copenhagen --; Mionnet Suppl 5 --. Julia Domna, AD 193-217. Roman provincial Æ (1 assarion?) 17.6 mm, 3.78 g. Bithynia, Nicaea, AD 193-211. Obv: ΙΟΥΛΙΑ CΕΒΑCΤΗ, bare-headed and draped bust right. Right: ΝΙΚΑΙΕΩΝ, eagle standing right. Refs: Recueil Général --; BMC --; Sear --; RG --; Lindgren I --; SNG von Aulock --; SNG Copenhagen --; Mionnet Suppl 5 --.
I've always posted this coin of Herennius Etruscus which has a plowing scene heading left, on the reverse. Never could reach an exact attribution on any reference so far.
Fantastic rarity @David Atherton! While I'm not very impressed with the style to be honest, it's of course amazing to have an unlisted coin.
I've told the story before but this group has high turnover so someone may enjoy it. I have two similar denarii of Septimius Severus from the earliest period of the 'Emesa' mint using the undated legend used in 193 AD. The reverse is the scarce VICTOR IVST xxx. The British Museum Catalog (BMCRE volume V) lists a coin where xxx is AVG as number 338. My specimen (ex. Barry Murphy 2002) is quite clear. The BM coin shown on plate 15,8 is on a small flan losing the legend at the right reverse. I was happy to get this coin with such clear reverse legend. Previously, in the 1998 Bickford-Smith CNG sale, I had purchased a coin with reverse legend where xxx was quite clearly AVS rather than AVG. I remain uncertain whether this is an error caused by the fact that neither S nor G are letter forms used in Greek or if the abbreviation used here was the first two and last letter of the word AVgustuS. Either way, that coin was important to me as were several others in the collection of my late friend. Most of his better coins were taken by the British Museum but they passed on this one since they already had a BMCRE 338. There is enough of their coin showing to establish that my coin (below) and theirs are die duplicates (both sides). That means that the BMCRE338 listing should have read VICTOR IVST AVS but was listed AVG by incorrect assumption of what was missing due to the small flan. The question is which of my two coins is 'unlisted'. The first matches the reading listed as number 338 while the second does not match the listing but is a die duplicate of the coin from which the listing was made. The two coins are different so one is 'unlisted' based on an assumption made by the BM staff some time in the past. ...or was it??? I see the possibility that the reading of 338 was influenced by the Cohen 738 coin VICTOR IVST AVG which may or may not have been seen by Cohen in person since the coin was not in the French National Collection but is credited to Wiczay (a reference unknown to me). I have no idea if the Wiczay coin has the reverse right legend or if Cohen/Wiczay made the assumption and the BM staff just copied it. Is the BM coin the same specimen as the Wiczay? https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Wiczay The plates in the linked work seem to be all Provincials. Are there Imperials also online? The plates date to the era before photography so are line drawings which may or may not be accurate to what was on the coin as opposed to what the artist wanted to see on the coin. Hardly one in a thousand who started this post will have read this far but this matter demonstrates one of the great appeals of collecting ancient coins to my way of thinking. Our coins have a history. We are not always aware of what happened to each of them between striking and entering our collections. If only our coins could talk, what stories could they tell? I would love to know if the Wiczay coin was one of the three coins discussed here or a different one. The collection was disbursed to the market a bit under 200 years ago. This is not the level of coin that would be easy to track. Wiczay had some really interesting types. This is just another Septimius Severus but it is my Septimius Severus. I hope to find someone to take the two together after I die but they will probably mean little to the 99% of collectors who were not offended in the line above where I said "just another Septimius Severus". How many dealers would receive the two coins and suspect there was anything there to be seen? Few. Any?
Ah, but this sort of coin is my bread and butter. I love these early provincial denarii with their weird and often unrecognisable portraits! Their history has yet to be written, I would like to part of the effort.
Interesting coin, 7Calbrey. I have a Herennius Etruscus ploughing right from Rhesaena. Not sure if this helps, but I thought I'd toss it out there. Herennius Etruscus Æ 25 Rhesaena, Mesopotamia (c. 249-251 A.D.) Laureate, draped and cuirassed bust right, [ΓAIMEΣ]EPETPOYΣKI[ΛΛIOΣ ΔEKIOΣΣEB] / CEΠ KOΛ ΡHCAINHCIΩN L III P, founder ploughing right with yoke of oxen, eagle above standing left on palm branch, holding wreath in beak, half figure of river god Chaboras swimming right in exergue. RPC 1593; Castelin 178-80. (12.25 grams / 25 mm)
